Primer: How super PACs rake it in

Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years — with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people.

Those are the findings in a new study that confirms what public interest groups have long feared and campaigns are learning the hard way in 2012 — that the cash for big-ticket campaign spending like TV advertising is increasingly controlled by an elite class of super-rich patrons not afraid to plunk down a million bucks or more for favored candidates and causes.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Last year alone, just 32 donors gave $34 million — and that’s not including an eight-figure donation from billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson in January.

The concentration of donors was discovered in Federal Election Commission filings analyzed by two nonprofit groups, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Demos that are pushing to strengthen disclosure and spending rules. Their results appear in a report published Wednesday that maps where super PACs are getting their cash.

Alongside individuals, corporations chipped in another $17 million last year. And unions kicked in $6 million. Another $2 million came from more shadowy sources difficult to trace, according to the report.

Expect “an unprecedented surge” in cash, particular secret money, later this year as Election Day approaches, predicted a co-author of the report, Blair Bowie of U.S. PIRG, pointing to 2010 patterns. As campaigns brace for that deluge, here’s a primer on the five ways the new outside groups are pulling in money — from secret gifts to transparent donations — and why each might be attractive to a donor:

That includes 15 people who gave $1 million or more, such as DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave $2 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Barack Obama, and John Paulson, a hedge fund billionaire who gave $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney’s GOP presidential campaign, according to FEC reports.

The figures don’t even include the $10 million that Adelson and his wife gave from their personal accounts to the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich’s GOP presidential campaign after the year-end FEC reports.

Giving from a personal account, rather than a corporate or non-profit account, is seen as a way for wealthy corporate types to shield their business interests from the controversy that such mega-donations can bring. But it doesn’t always work, as New Balance Chairman James Davis found out last year, when his sneaker company penned an apology to gay activists upset by his $500,000 contribution to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future.

Big personal donations also can be a way to advertise support for a candidate, said Foster Friess, a Wyoming mutual fund guru who is a major donor to super PACs supporting Rick Santorum’s GOP presidential campaign.

“I can say I endorse Rick Santorum and am going to vote for him, but it means a little more if I put up some green for him. There’s no need for me to be surreptitious about this,” said Friess, who had given $381,000 to a pair of super PACs supporting Santorum, according to FEC disclosures covering through the end of last year. Friess said he’s given more since then, and will continue giving as long as Santorum “needs me.”

Is this really a surprise? McCain/Feingold seemed at the outset to interfere with the previous funding process precisely for this end result! Yet another example of government meddling with something better left alone. Like many other things more recently meddled with that I could mention... Regardless of how these candidates and PACs get their funding, one thing is clear. We literally can't afford more of Obama. Whoever the GOP nominee is gets my vote. The leftist media doesn't admit this, but the national debt has accelerated at an unprecedented rate under Obama, and it wasn't pretty to start with. It now EQUALS our entire ECONOMY. Reported in the UK, because the media here isn't honest enough to do so. This debt doesn't even count the fact that things like Obamacare won't add into the total debt until all parts of the law go into effect, and you can count on the fact that it will be much more expensive than projected, just like any other government program. To top off the horrible debt, all branches of the federal government get an automatic 10% increase in budget each year, based upon spending of the previous year. This is since the 1974 Budget Reform Act. It doesn't take a mathematician to realize this is unsustainable growth and will quickly turn us into the EU if we aren't already. And don't count on Congress ever balancing the budget with so many politicians - on both sides- guilty of crony-capitalism with large campaign contributions from tax-exempt corporations.

Contrary to the understanding of those 'standing with the 99%,' Washington has no intention of fixing any problems within Wall Street - they've been in bed with them (on both sides) for generations, and have rigged things in the personal favor of their insider trading and political donors in the forms of tax exemption and government money. According to the recent book, "Throw them all out," a strong majority of the corruption is on the Democrat side. Obama himself has more campaign cash from Wall Street than all the GOP contenders combined. We absolutely need to look for politicians - on both sides- who recognize the culture of corruption in Washington bringing us headlong into financial crisis, and who have the character to withstand Washington's corruption and change things for the citizens of the country. We shouldn't be distracted by the partisan bickering in Washington and be partisan ourselves, that will hardly help the problem.

It never ceases to amaze me how some Democrats will just shout the same talking points over and over without looking at facts, and especially without looking at both sides of an argument. There is plenty of flip-flopping and corruption with Democrats too. Partisanship causes blindness on both sides. You've got to read both sides anymore to get a good idea of what's really going on, because both sides leave stuff out. The liberal media counts on its followers being gullible enough to not think for themselves. It is your duty to be a well-informed voter, not a brainwashed and partisan voter.

Political advertising via commercial airtime would be more democratic and representative if equal time was made available via a lottery system at a reasonable and consistent price. Otherwise, our political process continues as a corrupted farce - government for sale to the highest bidder.

Free Speech does not exist when a political "message" is delivered over a constrained supply of commercial airtime, made available only to the highest bidder. 'Citizens United' ensures that only those with the most money are heard over the major TV networks - this could be a single individual, even if an individual uses corporate money (not their own) to purchase access. This is inherently undemocratic.

Unregulated 'Capitalism' and true 'Democracy' are mutually exclusive. Democracy leads to the distribution of power in the hands of the majority - i.e. one person, one vote, equal individual influence. Capitalism leads to the concentration of power (via wealth) in the hands of an ever-diminishing few with highly-leveraged influence - i.e. Plutocracy. America's history is one of major swings between these opposing socio-economic paradigms. Our constitution was designed brilliantly to manage this conflict.

Most Americans think we have Democracy, but we don't. We have a Representative Republic. The idea is for citizens to elect members of Congress to represent the will of the majority, but many fail. After our "representatives" are elected, they can and do make decisions and enact laws that contradict the majority benefit, while enriching themselves in the process. Over time, Congress has built a privileged system that insulates members from the daily financial experience of everyday Americans, and they protect themselves from adverse conditions they impose on the majority.

The U.S. was founded in the absence of government control by political parties, and our constitution was established to operate perfectly in the absence of political parties. The current 2-party political system is prone to corruption, where career politicians are working to create opportunities for themselves. Over time, the two parties have rigged the election process to retain control. The 2-party system has become an investment property for the wealthy elite. America has become a Plutocracy.

Our corrupted government is empowered by a dysfunctional electorate where large numbers of citizens lack information and motivation and reliable ballot access to select candidates wisely and vote effectively. Media propaganda is extremely effective. While a handful of our elected members of Congress appear to be working as true public servants in the best interest of their constituent majority, most are in it for themselves. America was not founded on a base of career party loyalists, but that is what we have.

America works best when capitalism is democratized: When businesses and owners retain honest profits and gains with reasonable tax policy, and pay their actual costs to society (instead of transferring cost and risk to taxpayers); When workers have true career mobility through effective education and an honest financial system and fair labor regulations with individual healthcare access and retirement security; When America's infrastructure is modern and well-maintained. A balanced economic environment produces competitive innovation and national progress and widespread prosperity.

If voters are not able to do our homework to decide for ourselves which of our "representatives" have an honest history of working for the majority of their constituents, we should simply vote out incumbents across the board and start over. We should turn off the T.V. and change the radio station, and turn them all out. If the new representatives fail us, vote them out again in 2014. Through this process, at some point, we will get true public servants to represent us.

The corruption of American politics by money is well known. This post only serves to add more recent facts and figures.

Years ago, the Democrats could have taken the high road and avoided throwing in with moneyed interests long the supporters of Republicans. Democrats relented, though, fearing the loss of perhaps a decade's worth of elections as they, without big money, built up an effective indictment of Republicans and their coziness with big money. That opportunity lost has cost each of us the meaningfulness of our votes in elections. It's no longer one voter, one vote. It's now money versus money dictating the outcome of elections. Quite a spectacle our Democracy. Quite a spectacle.

Obama is taking "Super-Pacs" to a whole new level. Previously they were simply independent groups with backing and a message. Obama decried that as a perversion of our electoral system. He stood up and denounced it in his SOTU while he scolded another branch of govenrment SCOTUS.

Now Obama is sending cabinet members and his political team out to do fund-raising for his own Super-Pacs. Something that has never been done before, and is not being done by any other candidate. He hasn't just "embraced Super-Pacs, but has given them the keys to the WH. Literally!

Does this look anything remotely like the 99%? Or is it simply the selling of government favors?

So that's millions that these super rich guys are not investing into companies that create jobs (except, of course, the companies that make political ads). This leads me to believe that they would not be hurt very much if they were taxed a bit more.

America works best when capitalism is democratized: When businesses and owners retain honest profits and gains with reasonable tax policy, and pay their actual costs to society (instead of transferring cost and risk to taxpayers); When workers have true career mobility through effective education and an honest financial system and fair labor regulations with individual healthcare access and retirement security; When America's infrastructure is modern and well-maintained. A balanced economic environment produces competitive innovation and national progress and widespread prosperity.

During the SC primary, my husband heard an interview with a South Carolinian who stated that he would rather vote for a serial adulterer than a Mormon. And I guess they did. With that kind of mentality, the USA is in trouble.

Santorum is a LIAR. His comments regarding the Mass HC Plan were deemed MOSTLY FALSE by several polictical check facts including politifact. Check it out. He LIED and I do not want a LIAR for POTUS. He is too young and inexperienced. He has much to learn.

Unregulated 'Capitalism' and true 'Democracy' are mutually exclusive. Democracy leads to the distribution of power in the hands of the majority - i.e. one person, one vote, equal individual influence. Capitalism leads to the concentration of power (via wealth) in the hands of an ever-diminishing few with highly-leveraged influence - i.e. Plutocracy. America's history is one of major swings between these opposing socio-economic paradigms. Our constitution was designed brilliantly to manage this conflict.

WRONG

One of the main reasons that the country has drifted towards Oligarchy is hyper- regulated Capitalism. Every time the government dictates a new regulation or tax businesses, particularly the ones with enough money for large legal staffs and lobbyists, will seek to weaken or alter said regulation, usually to their own competitive advantage. Remove the regs and you remove the reason for lobbying and loopholes.

Next, how is it even possible for each individual to have equal influence? People will always try to exert their influence to varying degrees. Why shouldn't they? Isn't that what we're doing here on this forum? It's called Freedom of Speech. There is no way to enforce equal influence, or equal wealth for that matter, in a society which values the boundless energies and potential of the individual. Should MLK Jr. have had the same influence as Bull Connor? You are positing true "Democracy" as a collectivist utopia, or dystopia, populated by mediocrities. None shall rise above the other. All animals are equal, some are more equal than others.

Power, whether via wealth, influence or violence, will always become concentrated in a State. It is the nature of the State to do so. Even in Anarchy power will become concentrated in the hands of the most ruthless and violent. As Lord Kames, a Scottish philosopher wrote, humans are by nature acquisitive beings. Capitalism posits that the individual be able to make the most of his talents and passions and acquire wealth and power relatively unencumbered by the State. Profit and self interest are the most powerful motive powers resulting in the most freedom for the individual. The alternative is a motive power based on communism or altruism and resulting in a distinctly unfree sea of modiocrities.

As Joseph Ellis points out in his excellent introduction to "Founding Brothers" our Republic, as you correctly identify it, is not a democracy. A Republic, Ellis explains will always drift toward elitist Oligarchy or Plutocracy. Unfortunately, the other form of representative government, Democracy, drifts towards anarchy and it's attendant violence. The masses, weary of the whim of the mob, the majority as you put it, and the guillotine usher in a Thermadorean Reaction and Dictatorship. The violence and tyranny of the Democratic French Revolution stands in stark contrast to the largely peaceful, free Republican American Revolution.

Our fathers, indeed, crafted an ingenious sytem of government to ensure that the elites in possession of one branch of government would be unable to overwhelm the elites in the other two branches and usher in a dictatorship. The Oligarchical Senate, presciently endowed with the power of fillibuster, very neatly checks the excesses of the more proletarian House of Representatives. The House checks the Senate via it's power to initiate spending bills. The POTUS executes the laws and the SCOTUS is the final interpreter.

Trying to arrive at the perfect form of government was impossible for the Founders. The disillusion with our current government stems, in no small measure, to an unrealistic expectation that our government was invented by demigods and should be run by the same. The perfect is always the enemy of the good.

Political advertising via commercial airtime would be more democratic and representative if equal time was made available via a lottery system at a reasonable and consistent price. Otherwise, our political process continues as a corrupted farce - government for sale to the highest bidder.

Free Speech does not exist when a political "message" is delivered over a constrained supply of commercial airtime, made available only to the highest bidder. 'Citizens United' ensures that only those with the most money are heard over the major TV networks - this could be a single individual, even if an individual uses corporate money (not their own) to purchase access. This is inherently undemocratic.

A return to the Fairness Doctrine is what you're advocating. How would a lottery be either Democratic or representative? Are the Nazis and Communists to be allowed entry to the lottery? Are the Greens to get as equal a chance as the Dems, the Libertarians as equal as the GOP? The appeal of minor parties is narrowly constructed and not nearly as representative of the sentiments of Americans. But, if they can gain a modicum of ideological influence they will be more able to attract the wealth necessary to run campaign commercials over airwave capacity which has proliferated exponentially since the Fairness Doctrine of the 70's. Being able to freely express your own opinion or the opinion of associating individuals (Corporation) is inherently democratic. The Bill of RIghts guarantees Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, be it something which you support or find abhorrent.

Political advertising via commercial airtime would be more democratic and representative if equal time was made available via a lottery system at a reasonable and consistent price. Otherwise, our political process continues as a corrupted farce - government for sale to the highest bidder.

Free Speech does not exist when a political "message" is delivered over a constrained supply of commercial airtime, made available only to the highest bidder. 'Citizens United' ensures that only those with the most money are heard over the major TV networks - this could be a single individual, even if an individual uses corporate money (not their own) to purchase access. This is inherently undemocratic.

A return to the Fairness Doctrine is what you're advocating. How would a lottery be either Democratic or representative? Are the Nazis and Communists to be allowed entry to the lottery? Are the Greens to get as equal a chance as the Dems, the Libertarians as equal as the GOP? The appeal of minor parties is narrowly constructed and not nearly as representative of the sentiments of Americans. But, if they can gain a modicum of ideological influence they will be more able to attract the wealth necessary to run campaign commercials over airwave capacity which has proliferated exponentially since the Fairness Doctrine of the 70's. Being able to freely express your own opinion or the opinion of associating individuals (Corporation) is inherently democratic. The Bill of RIghts guarantees Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, be it something which you support or find abhorrent.

NewIndy: Feb. 8, 2012 - 1:27 PM EST

Most Americans think we have Democracy, but we don't. We have a Representative Republic. The idea is for citizens to elect members of Congress to represent the will of the majority, but many fail. After our "representatives" are elected, they can and do make decisions and enact laws that contradict the majority benefit, while enriching themselves in the process. Over time, Congress has built a privileged system that insulates members from the daily financial experience of everyday Americans, and they protect themselves from adverse conditions they impose on the majority.

You correctly state that we live in a Republic and then ignore the reason why; in order to prevent the will of the majority from becoming the whim of the mob. The will of the majority often contradicts policies beneficial to the country. As a Scottish Enlightenment economist realized, in a Democracy (unbridled majority rule) the masses will vote themselves into bankruptcy by helping themselves to all the goodies it feels entitled to at the expense of the minority (wealthy). This is called "eating the rich" and when they have been cannibalized there will be very little left to eat. Just ask the millions who starved in the USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba and Vietnam. Enslave the corporations in the name of the People and you get fascist tyrants such as Mussolini and Hitler.

Political advertising via commercial airtime would be more democratic and representative if equal time was made available via a lottery system at a reasonable and consistent price. Otherwise, our political process continues as a corrupted farce - government for sale to the highest bidder.

Free Speech does not exist when a political "message" is delivered over a constrained supply of commercial airtime, made available only to the highest bidder. 'Citizens United' ensures that only those with the most money are heard over the major TV networks - this could be a single individual, even if an individual uses corporate money (not their own) to purchase access. This is inherently undemocratic.

A return to the Fairness Doctrine is what you're advocating. How would a lottery be either Democratic or representative? Are the Nazis and Communists to be allowed entry to the lottery? Are the Greens to get as equal a chance as the Dems, the Libertarians as equal as the GOP? The appeal of minor parties is narrowly constructed and not nearly as representative of the sentiments of Americans. But, if they can gain a modicum of ideological influence they will be more able to attract the wealth necessary to run campaign commercials over airwave capacity which has proliferated exponentially since the Fairness Doctrine of the 70's. Being able to freely express your own opinion or the opinion of associating individuals (Corporation) is inherently democratic. The Bill of RIghts guarantees Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, be it something which you support or find abhorrent.

NewIndy: Feb. 8, 2012 - 1:27 PM EST

Most Americans think we have Democracy, but we don't. We have a Representative Republic. The idea is for citizens to elect members of Congress to represent the will of the majority, but many fail. After our "representatives" are elected, they can and do make decisions and enact laws that contradict the majority benefit, while enriching themselves in the process. Over time, Congress has built a privileged system that insulates members from the daily financial experience of everyday Americans, and they protect themselves from adverse conditions they impose on the majority.

You correctly state that we live in a Republic and then ignore the reason why; in order to prevent the will of the majority from becoming the whim of the mob. The will of the majority often contradicts policies beneficial to the country. As a Scottish Enlightenment economist realized, in a Democracy (unbridled majority rule) the masses will vote themselves into bankruptcy by helping themselves to all the goodies they feel entitled to at the expense of the minority (wealthy). This is called "eating the rich" and when they have been cannibalized there will be very little left to eat. Just ask the millions who starved in the USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba and Vietnam. Enslave the corporations in the name of the People and you get fascist tyrants such as Mussolini and Hitler.

NewIndy: Feb. 8, 2012 - 1:27 PM EST

The U.S. was founded in the absence of government control by political parties, and our constitution was established to operate perfectly in the absence of political parties. The current 2-party political system is prone to corruption, where career politicians are working to create opportunities for themselves. Over time, the two parties have rigged the election process to retain control. The 2-party system has become an investment property for the wealthy elite. America has become a Plutocracy.

There is never an absence of parties in any government. Factions will never to be able to operate completely free of opposition. Power does not exist in a vacuum. Our Founders quickly formed parties from the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian factions. These parties exercised control over the government from its' inception.

A 2 party system is a much better guarantor of lberty thasn a multiparty system. A multiparty system is unbridled factionalism exercised by parties with their own special interests. Deal making is de riguer. A ruling coalition will not last long if it can't appease the extremist parties within it.

The corruption of American politics by money is well known. This post only serves to add more recent facts and figures.

Years ago, the Democrats could have taken the high road and avoided throwing in with moneyed interests long the supporters of Republicans. Democrats relented, though, fearing the loss of perhaps a decade's worth of elections as they, without big money, built up an effective indictment of Republicans and their coziness with big money. That opportunity lost has cost each of us the meaningfulness of our votes in elections. It's no longer one voter, one vote. It's now money versus money dictating the outcome of elections. Quite a spectacle our Democracy. Quite a spectacle.

When was this decision made? Before the Dems were supported by monied unions? Prior to Citizens United the top spenders were overwhelmingly unions. Out of the top 20 organizations contributing to elections 12 were unions and only 3 were corporations. 2 of the other 5 were corporate catchall orgs (Chamber of Commerce) and the other 3 were left-leaning PIRGS. The unions then overwhelmingly donated to the Dems while the corporate split was nearly 50/50. There simply is no way to prevent wealth, union or corporate, from obtaining influence in elections. Unions and corporations are guaranteed the Right to Assembly and the Right to Free Speech in the Bill of Rights. If you wish to gain influence over legislators feel free to donate your efforts, i.e cash or work. The recent reversal of SOPA was caused, not by massive donations from Reddit and Craigslist but by the millions of e-mails and phone calls made by outraged citizens demonstrating "incivility" or dissent.